Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 85

Contradiction in lead
Note, I have created a new section for this discussion, which is about whether there is a contradiction in the LEAD. Please address the point raised here, and nothing else. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC) There is a contradiction in the lead. It says, "Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudo-scientific view...." Later it says, "ID is a religious argument...." Religion is not pseudo-science, it actually pre-dates it. The "religious argument" (it is actually philosophical) is the argument from design. It only becomes pseudo-science when it is treated as a theory that is falsifiable. Science cannot disprove the argument from design, nor can it prove it. Pseudo-scientists claim it can. TFD (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As shown by a source cited in the lead, there is yet no hypothesis/theory of ID, pseudoscientific or not. So, ID is a religious argument that such a hypothesis should be eventually formulated. There are some concepts like irreducible complexity and specified complexity being argued by ID proponents, but till now ID is nothing like firm testable predictions from a hypothesis. The ordinary way for a scientific theory be taught in schools is: formulate the hypothesis, publish articles testing it in scientific journals, then a minority of the concerned scientists support it, then the majority, it gets taught in many universities and then you could write a manual for high-schools. The ID proponents have started with the schoolbook and have not yet formulated ID as a hypothesis making clear (and falsifiable) predictions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For what this religious argument entails see theistic science: Plantinga argues that there should be a Christian sort of science, different from secular science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting we not call ID a pseudoscience? I strongly disagree--per WP policy and guidelines--with so labeling it before defining it in its own terms, but so many RSs call it pseudoscience we have to include that info. What, imho, most editors here are missing is that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an indignant screed. Therefore, we say influential scientists harshly criticize ID as a sham, a pseudoscience, a dishonest argument, but we don't criticize it in WP's own voice. YoPienso (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Plantinga advocates in fact the ghettoization of science. That's why ID pushes pseudoscience: fundamentalist Christians do not like secular science, so they concoct their own science, developed and taught in their own scientific ghettos. Also, trying to undo methodological naturalism has been seen as a hallmark of pseudoscience, even if the pseudoscientific hypothesis itself has not been developed yet. Otherwise, seen that the context of discovery is not the same with the context of justification, we have to wait and see if there will ever be a testable hypothesis arising from the ID movement. My two cents is that they won't like the falsification of their own predictions, that's why they keep their arguments in the realm of the unfalsifiable (wherein everything could be predicated without fear of actual falsification). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but I think we've veered off-topic. YoPienso (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Does not the term 'natural selection' imply intelligence? When something is 'selected' it involves more than pulling a number out of a hat. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This comment is not relevant to the voting. It is also not relevant to ID, but is merely an attempt to cast doubt on a facet of biology. Let's keep on topic.   TomS TDotO (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's entirely relevant and something to consider before using the misleading label of 'natural selection'. Since there are a number of impartial(?) sources to consider, we here at Wikipedia must consider the logic and terminology used in what we present to the readers. I respect science in terms of advancing a better rocket fuel, but when it comes to deciphering the origins of life and the universe they're like children trying to build a bridge across the ocean with a set of 'Tinker Toys'. - Gwillhickers (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's an analogy which scientific terms often use. TFD (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Both of the above alternatives are somewhat defunct. Re: Alt2: "Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument constituting a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses. As such, ID is pseudoscience." This implies that scientific analysis, such that it is, is conclusive. And once again, we are referring to the "scientific community" as if they're all on the same page. They're not. Can we get an alternative that is not rife with weasle and partisan terminology? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not imply that scientific analysis is conclusive. But claims that cannot be tested are outside science and any claim that they can be tested is pseudoscience.  That's true whether or not you happen to accept the argument from design or believe in God.  TFD (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that we not let this discussion on the vote be distracted by totally irrelevant comments. TomS TDotO (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pointing out the less than accurate POV terminology in both versions being voted on is completely relevant. Speaking for the "scientific community" in a manner that suggests they're one unified group in lock-step with one another, esp about abstract ideas like creation of life, an intelligent creator, etc, needs to be mentioned. "Deliberately avoid"? The current version reads like an indictment, while the proposed version is hardly better. For balance shouldn't all version include the idea that, Scientists and ID proponents can not explain how life began? This vote was thrown together in a hasty fashion, is narrow in scope and lacks balance and an other alternative. "...not adding or removing any words or sources"? What is the point if all we're doing is rearranging the same POV? Have your little pow-wow, but all versions beg the POV tag. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're conflating all kinds of disparate ideas here that have no bearing on the question at hand. We're not even discussing "how life began" which is abiogenesis and not evolution. The scientific analysis that evolution is the factual explanation for the variation of life on this planet is not a question among the scientific community. It is in fact 99.9% in lockstep on the facts. Science has no bearing on the question of a creator as it is un-testable and hence why ID is pseudoscience. Capeo (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, "the question of a creator as it is un-testable", which is why I suggested the neutral clause, "Scientists and ID proponents can not explain how life began." for overall balance and context regarding the two schools of thought. Theory has always paved the way for science, as Einstein and others have demonstrated time and again. All versions are hardly different. What "question at hand"? Which is the best way to advance the current POV? Good luck with the vote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, neither ID nor evolution seek to directly answer the question "how life began". That's abiogenesis. Evolution is observable fact that is testable and verifiable. ID is religion veiled in scientific trappings, thus, pseudoscience. Pointing that out, as RS do, is not POV. Capeo (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For the record, scientists are, in fact, in lockstep agreement on whether evolution happened. ID is based upon the proposition that evolution is impossible. Therefore, any scientist who agrees that evolution happened is in perfect agreement that ID is false.
 * Also, ID pretends to be a science. Whether or not it has any identifiable, fundamental aspects of science is beside the point. The fact that it pretends to be science makes it pseudoscience, by every possible definition of the word. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My reference to "scientific community" was in regard to the claim that ID is without any scientific basis. I don't know of any religious people who deny that life forms have gone through an evolution. (Yes, I'm sure there are some who do out there somewhere.) IMO, evolution is the continuation of creation, while the question of the origins remains a mystery to all. The D.I. website you linked to clearly says that Intelligent Design is a theory. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ID has no scientific basis. Of course the DI claims it does but that's why we use reliable secondary sources and not the claims of the subjects themselves. Capeo (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My reference to "scientific community" was in regard to the claim that ID is without any scientific basis. Do you have any evidence at all to suggest that an appreciable percentage of scientists (by which I mean at least 5-10%, not 0.05-0.1%) think that there is some scientific merit to the utterly unscientific proposition that sits at the heart of ID?
 * IMO, evolution is the continuation of creation, while the question of the origins remains a mystery to all. IMO, your opinion has no business in this article. Guess whose opinion is demonstrably right?
 * The D.I. website you linked to clearly says that Intelligent Design is a theory. Which was exactly my point. ID pretends to be science. Did you expect the discovery institute to suggest that ID was a pseudoscience, or not science at all? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I observe that there is no hope for the discussion to remain on topic. Perhaps there are people who want to register that they are not being given a vote. So I suggest that those who cannot choose between the options that they can vote Abstention. TomS TDotO (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Coming back to the topic: for the reasons I stated above, I see no contradiction. The argument is religious and it implies that a pseudoscience should be developed. So, ID is both religion and pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Let's try again. The argument from design is a philosophical argument, taught in philosophy text books, for example in Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction, Fourth Edition (Hackett Publishing Company), p. 239.  Philosophical arguments are not pseudo-science or science for that matter.  TFD (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No. TFD please read the article.  Everything you have written here is addressed in the article already.  ID was specifically set up to "look like" science and challenge science but it is grounded in religion.  This is why it is pseudoscience. The article explains this.  More importantly, your comments here are not based on having read the article nor the sources provided, and WP is not a SOAPBOX for you to play logic games.  I am giving you the discretionary sanctions notice for PS if you don't already have it.   If you continue wasting people's time here and giving your opinion instead of dealing with the sourced content in the article and bringing different readings of all those sources, or bringing new ones,  we will have to see that you are prevented from doing so. Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think it possible to provide reasoned discussion without resorting to personal attacks? I am not discussing the article but the lead because the RfC (which you set up) is about the wording of the lead.  While ID is pseudoscience, philosophy is not and you are claiming it is.  TFD (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Article Talk pages are not the place for "reasoned discussion" based on your personal thoughts about the lead or any other aspect of this article.  I will WP:SHUN with respect to future comments you make that are not based on sourced content in the article or bringing new sources and suggesting comment based on them, and I reckon others will do the same.  You have also been made aware of the DS and if you continue to misrepresent me or others that will be grounds for an AE case on its own. Jytdog (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your argument is comprehensively rebutted with two words: cdesign proponentsists. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@ TFD; The contradiction is in the lead, because the contradiction is inherent in ID creationism. "Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudo-scientific view:...." a view which rejects science while being presented as science which can supposedly be taught in science classrooms, though they've not actually worked ou the "theory" yet. Later it says, "ID is a religious argument.." The central "theory" of ID is the teleological argument, the religious apologetics at the heart of natural theology, an argument central to creation science, the pseudoscientific predecessor of ID. Which was found in court to infringe the First Amendment, so the cdesign proponentsists quickly relabelled creation science as ID and, officially if not consistently, removed obvious religious references such as "creation". All of that is in the article, and should be in the lead – please check the wording and find where that needs clarified. Thanks,. dave souza, talk 07:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No contradiction. ID is a religious argument that pretends to be scientific - ergo pseudoscience. The two statements look at two different aspects of the same thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a PHD in philosophy, but it was my understanding that ID was based, in part, on scientific observation, that because the physical (scientific) universe, and life forms on Earth, are highly ordered entities, there must be some inherent intelligence behind their creation. ID proponents claim their belief is a theory. I haven't seen any claim made by them that says they have some scientific evidence about how life began, only that because the universe and life forms, and science itself, are highly ordered entities ('cause' and effect in all its forms) the logical progression is that there is some sort of creative intelligence at work. Again, no one, including scientists, ID proponents and religious people can prove how life began. For context and neutrality I hope this idea will be mentioned somewhere in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What's with this off-topic uninformed bullshit about "prove how life began"? The claims of those who believe in intelligent design are simple: that there is scientific evidence that intelligence was involved in creating lifeforms. In contrast, the scientific fact is that there is no evidence for intelligence working directly in evolution. None. On the other hand, there is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that evolution proceeds on the basis of natural selection. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that life emerged in an abiogenetic process without any input from any intelligence. That the people who believe in ID claim there is scientific evidence is the extent to which they are pseudoscientific. jps (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Claims have been made. Others are allowed to respond. Scientists, like ID proponents and others have observed evolution. Where is the proof there is no intelligence at work? The Abiogenesis school of thought claims life evolved from simple matter, but they can explain 'what' started the process. No one can prove intelligence is at work, but don't kid yourself, no one can disprove it either. The article should mention this for neutrality. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * it was my understanding that ID was based, in part, on scientific observation, Your understanding is wrong. ID is based upon misrepresentation of real scientific data and outright falsehoods. Keep up with the "no-one can prove it wasn't god" arguments and I promise you this: you will find yourself topic banned. You've been around WP long enough to know that kind of crap argument won't fly here. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes scientific observation. It's only an opinion that they have misrepresented it, and again, ID proponents have claimed much of what they propose is theory. Scientists themselves have often misrepresented their own observations, or do you regard them as some sort of infallible god, exempt from human error? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Gwillhicker, just stop. It's clear you neither have the background in ID nor actual science to grasp what would or wouldn't be POV here. If you had even read the article you'd know ID very much claims to be science, as in a scientific theory, which is far different than the word "theory" as you seem to be using it. They tried to get it taught in science classes! That's the whole point of the Dover trial. Note as well, we can very much figure out how life began within a pretty high certainty. We have evidence of the oldest living organism and multiple models of abiogenenic processes that can lead to self replicating molecules. We'll get there eventually. We currently already know evolution has no guiding hand behind it other than the randomness of environmental pressures and mutations. All of ID's claims of being scientific are bogus. It is, in fact, one of the purest examples of pseudoscience you can find. Capeo (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's only an opinion that they have misrepresented it. That statement is 100%, pure bullshit. It is -in no way- "only an opinion" that they have misinterpreted it. It has been demonstrated in the scientific literature, through experimentation, modelling and mathematics and in a court of law that their interpretation is spurious and unscientific. Now you are just disrupting this page with bullshit claims like this. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was only responding to other claims made, like others have, including yourself, just now. The only thing disruptive is your temper and foul mouth approach to debate. If you disagree with other views, please say so without all the gut-wrenching. How do the 'models of abiogenenic processes' explain how the process started? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Seeing as this has absolutely nothing to do with ID I'd suggest you do your own research. Our own article on abiogenesis is a starting point. This off-topic meandering is disruptive. Capeo (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Where do ID proponents claim "evolution is impossible"? Many scientists are supportive of ID, but I don't see where they've denied evolution. Again, no one can explain, computer models notwithstanding, how the abiogenenic process all 'began', or 'what' started it all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me to have broad support?
It seems to me that the only wording which has been shown to have broad support was the previous language. I don't want to engage in edit warring, but this should be offered to at least a few days' comments at least, if not a formal vote. I, for one, am not going to support something which represents my opinion if I am not convinced that it represents the consensus of the opinion of the knowledgeable people. (Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this wording is what I would agree to.) Wikipedia is intended to present to the public not our own opinions. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I hadn't gotten a chance to express my opinion on this particular wording yet but I think it's the best amalgamation of all the possibilities presented so far. I have no issue with its current inclusion. Granted, it was a bit convoluted getting there but, unless there's strong objections, I see no reason for strict adherence to WP bureaucracy to get in the way of an article improvement. Capeo (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I read the comments, not the !votes. The old wording was a bit clumsy and somewhat strident. Bish's tweak to Manul's version is stylistically better, tighter, and more Wikipedian. Feel free to find any evidence that I am a cdesign proponentsist. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to find any evidence that I am a cdesign proponentsist. found it. (Hey, if it can be evidence of the 'failures' of evolution, it can be evidence of anything...) MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is better than the old version. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me to have broad support?
It seems to me that the only wording which has been shown to have broad support was the previous language. I don't want to engage in edit warring, but this should be offered to at least a few days' comments at least, if not a formal vote. I, for one, am not going to support something which represents my opinion if I am not convinced that it represents the consensus of the opinion of the knowledgeable people. (Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this wording is what I would agree to.) Wikipedia is intended to present to the public not our own opinions. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I hadn't gotten a chance to express my opinion on this particular wording yet but I think it's the best amalgamation of all the possibilities presented so far. I have no issue with its current inclusion. Granted, it was a bit convoluted getting there but, unless there's strong objections, I see no reason for strict adherence to WP bureaucracy to get in the way of an article improvement. Capeo (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I read the comments, not the !votes. The old wording was a bit clumsy and somewhat strident. Bish's tweak to Manul's version is stylistically better, tighter, and more Wikipedian. Feel free to find any evidence that I am a cdesign proponentsist. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to find any evidence that I am a cdesign proponentsist. found it. (Hey, if it can be evidence of the 'failures' of evolution, it can be evidence of anything...) MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is better than the old version. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC - Style of lead
The current 1st paragraph of the lead says (with very extensive referencing removed and with the word "pseudoscientific" bolded):


 * Current version:  Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."  Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses. Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.  Although they state that ID is not creationism and deliberately avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of these proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity.

People have expressed a desire to change the style so that the word "pseudoscience" appears a) later, and b) as a noun instead of an adjective.


 * Alternative 1:  Intelligent design (ID) is the view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Intelligent design is pseudoscience, with educators, philosophers, and the scientific community having demonstrated that ID is not science but a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses. Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.  Although they state that ID is not creationism and deliberately avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of these proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity.


 * Alternative 2: Intelligent design (ID) is the view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.  Although they state that ID is not creationism and deliberately avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of these proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity. Proponents argue that ID is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, yet concede that they have yet to produce a scientific theory. Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument constituting a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses. As such, ID is pseudoscience.

This RfC is focused only on the arrangement of existing content, not adding or removing any words or sources. Relevant policies/guidelines include WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE, and WP:LEAD.

Please !vote for a version in the designated section, and discuss in the section below. It would be most helpful for the closer if you put responses to !votes in the discussion section and kept the !votes free of clutter.

Please also be mindful of the DS on this topic and of WP:SOAP. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

!votes

 * Current version   TomS TDotO (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Current version --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Current version jps (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Current version --McSly (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Current version Charles (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Current version — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 16:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Current version – Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Current version – dave souza, talk 19:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Current version - Meters (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Alternative 2 — YoPienso (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Alternative1 or Alt2 - comports better with WP:FRINGE which says describe, then characterize. Still unambiguous and clear that ID is PSCI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 20:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Current Version the other version are not improvements. - Nick Thorne  talk  21:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Current Version — Davidbuddy9 Talk  05:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Alternative 1 or current version. Alt 2 doesn't read neutrally and passively, with the use of "...as such..." MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Current version - Same reasoning as I stated above. Capeo (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Current version. ID is canonical pseudoscience: a deliberately sciencey-seeming spin on creationism explicitly designed to bypass the First Amendment. This is a matter of judicially established fact, there really is nothing else to say here. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No preference &mdash; since they all seem to say the same thing. I find all of them ok. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
I would also be happy with
 * Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscience built on the assumption that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

jps (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Something like this might be closer to my opinion, but I don't think that it represents the consensus opinion of knowledgeable people. If it were offered as a choice I would have to be convinced of such a consensus before I could vote for it.    TomS TDotO (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It aspires to be a pseudoscience but the pseudo research has not been done. It is clearly pseudoscientific.Charles (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If the noun is preferable to the adjective in the current version, it could be phrased as: Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscience, defined by its proponents as a theory which "holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." That goes further in quoting the ID proponents' definitions, while making attribution clear. I'm not convinced it's an improvement. . dave souza, talk 19:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Noun/adj. makes no difference to me, but this is better than the current version because it says "defined by its proponents as . . ." YoPienso (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The change from adjective to noun is an improvement but the actual language offered is awkward and not an improvement. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * A little background. I have always held this article up as being one of the success stories of Wikipedia. Though I had not participated until now, I followed as a distant spectator, even before I joined Wikipedia. One of the early things I did after making an account was to create template:talk fringe based upon the header for this talk page.


 * There are many votes here, but few reasons provided. The point of the previous thread was to present arguments which, from what I can tell, were not presented before, so yet another thread -- this one -- that doesn't specifically address those arguments is redundant with the last bazillion ones. A formal RfC seems like a waste of time.


 * It's too bad this thread didn't include 's proposal: Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents with the claim that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins": it has been found to be pseudoscience. This is the best proposal I've seen so far, and I would support it or something similar.


 * And I can't help but mention: I hope everyone understands that any argument based upon externalities unrelated to policy/guideline-focused improvements is simply not a valid argument as far as Wikipedia editing goes. To copy what I said before: If there is a problem with fringe-pushing then it should be addressed using the appropriate channels. There are many options, including, say, the 500/30 restriction. If attempts to address the problem have failed, then you bring that to attention in an appropriate forum -- perhaps AE, perhaps elsewhere. However saying, "Because we have this problem, we are going to make edits that are not based upon policies and guidelines, not based upon best practices, and not based upon improving the article; rather, we shall make edits in order to manage our meta-problem" -- that's very much like WP:POINTy behavior, if not POINTy behavior itself. Manul ~ talk 13:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Weighting
I know about WP:weight but the article is currently so heavily weighted as to be propaganda. I suggest the lead should read: "Intelligent design is a theory about the origin of the universe. Its opponents claim that it is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God..." Roberttherambler (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ID is not a theory. It claims to be, but it's not. This is amply verified by the sources, as is every other claim in the article. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's not a theory, what is it? Roberttherambler (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A PR campaign. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, if Intelligent Design was intended to be a scientific theory that could actually replace the theory of Evolution, then it would demonstrate both how to detect "intelligent design" in biological phenomena, and how to use this alleged understanding of "intelligent design" to do science. It does neither, and instead, says "biological phenomena are too complex for us mere mortals to ever understand, therefore GOD INTELLIGENT DESIGNER DID IT."  In other words, Intelligent Design "theory" is nothing more than anti-science propaganda that conflates God with ignorance while appealing to ignorance, and hopes that people are stupid enough to accept this ploy to make Creationism more science-y sounding.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To expound on question in a slightly different direction: Scientific theory outlines the characteristics of a theory, which you may notice ID lacks almost entirely. It doesn't even posit an explanation, which is the most fundamental (in the sense of being accepted by everyone, not just those who know the actual definition of a scientific theory) aspect of a theory.  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not say that intelligent design is a "scientific theory". I just said it was a "theory". Please do not try to move the goalposts. Roberttherambler (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If I changed my suggested text to: ""Intelligent design is a religious theory about the origin of the universe" would that be acceptable? Roberttherambler (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, because it's still not a theory, even in the loosest sense of the word. It is -at best- a hypothesis. But that's really beside the point. The reason the current lede exists is because it accurately reflects what reliable sources have said about ID. It is -unquestionably- pseudoscience. It pretends to be non-religious and scientific. To describe it as a "religious theory" is to say explicitly that it presents itself as an exercise in theology, which is patently untrue. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is unusual to find a Wikipedia article in which the first line of the lead is so hostile to the subject being written about. Even in the article about Diesel exhaust, which is a lot more harmful than intelligent design, the bad news is relegated to the second paragraph. Roberttherambler (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is unusual to find a Wikipedia article in which the first line of the lead is so hostile to the subject being written about. The article is not hostile to the subject. Reality is hostile to the subject. Since WP reflects reality, this is how we keep articles neutral. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are applying different standards to different articles. If I started the diesel engine article with "The diesel engine is a nasty dirty cancer-causing killing machine" I don't think you would accept that. Roberttherambler (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "nasty dirty cancer-causing killing machine" is blatantly unencyclopedic, as it consists of three value judgements ("nasty" "dirty" and "killing machine"), the latter of which ignores the expressly designed function of the machine, and is thus factually inaccurate, plus a bit of common parlance in place of technically correct language ("cancer-causing" vs "carcinogenic").
 * On the other hand "creationist religious argument" is factual, technically accurate and free of value judgements. The second sentence, which states that ID "...has been found to be pseudoscience" is also factual, technically accurate and free of value judgements.
 * Since you seem keen on comparing diesel engines to ID, could you possibly demonstrate the economic benefits ID has had, and compare and contrast them with those of the diesel engine? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God" is also unencyclopedic because it is an opinion of opponents of ID. I know it is backed by references but it is still an opinion. I don't object to people expressing this opinion but I do object to it being the first line of the article. The first line should say what ID is, in the opinion of its proponents. The "demolition derby" can come in the second line. Roberttherambler (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is the opinion of virtually all people and institutions competent to evaluate the matter plus, as a bonus, the courts.  — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 18:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God" is also unencyclopedic because it is an opinion of opponents of ID. No, it's a fact that is asserted by almost every expert to have examined the situation and ruled as a fact by a court of law. See cdesign proponentsists and wedge strategy for more. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please yourselves. If you want Wikipedia to be as biased as Conservapedia then so be it. Roberttherambler (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * An accurate reflection of the facts is the opposite of bias. In fact, one might point out how an argument which has been thoroughly refuted, yet does not result in the party making it changing their mind would be a textbook example of a bias in action. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0%2C%2C-6413677%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519124655/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf to http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140306082532/http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/design/aulie_of-pandas.html to http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/design/aulie_of-pandas.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120617015335/http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/ant_encyc.pdf to http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/ant_encyc.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040714104028/http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php to http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140905230611/http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Wedge.cfm to http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Wedge.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110411085856/http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/sign_the_list.php to http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/sign_the_list.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130307233347/http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11751&Language=en to http://www.assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11751&Language=EN
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140307163155/http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta07%2FERES1580.htm to http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?link=%2Fdocuments%2Fadoptedtext%2Fta07%2Feres1580.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Dave's lead
Since the RfC is now relatively old, and was over before it began anyway, let's make a new thread for 's proposal (slightly edited by me):

Manul ~ talk 14:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Update: Taking in Bish's astute concerns about syntax (which are certainly not shared by Bishzilla), this wording is probably better: I think "presented by proponents as" already implies that it's just a claim. Manul ~ talk 16:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. This follows WP:EVALFRINGE's advice to first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas. It describes the idea more clearly than before, and by bringing context to the proponents' words it also addresses some previous objections. Manul ~ talk 14:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Meh It's no better nor worse than the existing or Alt 1, above. Still better than Alt 2 though. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that it is inappropriate to start another vote tally while the RfC is taking place. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Meh" to that, too. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with doing this, but it does add to the overall chaos of the talk page. I'm not disagreeing with you, precisely, it's mostly just that the overall chaos level here is not too bad, and a little extra isn't very difficult to deal with. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The RfC is already over due to crystalline precipitation and should be closed soon, and as I explained it was probably needless to begin with. It's better to propose this now while it's fresh rather than waiting 30 days for no reason. Manul ~ talk 15:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think this is slightly better than the current version. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK except that the syntax isn't happy, with the two parallell clauses "presented by its proponents with the claim".. and "but has been found to be"... such different grammatical constructions. Quite itchy. I'm trying to figure some fix, but I'm just going out to dinner. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC).
 * the purpose of an RfC is to get outside input. It has only just started and we will get more feedback with time.   We should perhaps add this to the RfC.  I would be happy to do that and notify those who have already responded (which are primarily those who watch this page already)  Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's much too late to amend the RfC. Please see the problems with the RfC I mentioned there. I think it would be best if you withdrew it (as the poster you can do that) or otherwise have someone WP:SNOW-close it as soon as possible. Manul ~ talk 17:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Constructive criticism (much better than 'meh') Both versions (including the version reworded to suit da Bish) look like they're begging for a tag. I'd say it looks better like this:
 * MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  16:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  16:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Not bad (Bishified version). I think it's actually more informative than the current version. Never been terribly fond of the "ID is the view" formulation, but all other proposals to date have been worse on other fronts. Not fond of adding "by the scientific community", per Mr. Pants. Who or what else could possibly make that determination? The deluge of sources will quell any temptation of adding . — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 17:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Who or what else could possibly make that determination? Atheists, skeptics, Universal Unitarians, politicians, the pharmaceutical industry, etc, etc... Hell, you can toss Satanists and The Devil in there, too. Having been a follower of creation/evolution debates (and having switched from being a young creationist to an adult rationalist), I can tell you with the utmost confidence that there is no shortage of groups who serve as the Big Bad in the myriad of creationist views. As to a deluge of sources quenching any POV editing, I might direct you to the Acupuncture article history which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that a deluge of citations does nothing to stop POV pushing editors. I've got at least a dozen more such pages on my watchlist, if one example isn't enough to satisfy you. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Point taken. It won't quell the temptation to start pointless debates; but I should hope they would be quickly stopped in Talk. I don't watch nearly as many pseudoscience/religion articles as you, but on the few I have watched over a few years, such as this one, Adam and Eve, etc, good sense and the mainstream science POV tend to prevail when POV pushing occurs. Adding "by the scientific community" seems redundant to me, just as "found impressionist by the painting community" would be, and I don't even see how it would deter the POV pushers. On this very page, we have some classical examples of "look, scientists don't agree on stuff" / "there are religious scientists" / "Einstein was religious" thrown around higgledy-piggledy in an attempt to undermine the notion of scientific consensus. Not sure you'd get less POV-pushing; just the same from a different angle. The current formulation also does not exclude the court verdicts -- although scientific matters are not really within the purview of courts, given the nature of ID it's fairly important. To be clear, I don't have very strong feelings about the addition. I just don't see the added value. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 19:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding "by the scientific community" seems redundant to me, just as "found impressionist by the painting community" would be Normally, I would agree, except in this case, there are (in addition to the numerous 'bad guys' posited by creationists) numerous groups involved. We have politicians, scientists, science journalists, judges and courts, and 'liberal' clergy, all of whom could be the ones responsible for labeling it pseudoscience. I understand where you're coming from, because to me, when I read it I mentally add "...by the scientific community" instinctively and without conscious thought. But -and here's where we get a bit subjective- I remember how I switched sides in this debate. I set out to prove to someone that evolution was problematic and anti-religious POVs were the only reason that creationism didn't get published. I started doing research, and if WP had existed then, I'd have checked it, first. The kicker for me was realizing just how much support evolution has in the scientific community, and from Christian scientists, no less. I'd been led to believe that a good chunk of scientists were creationists who simply didn't write about their beliefs due to peer pressure. When confronted with the fact that scientists are virtually unanimous in accepting the tenets of evolution and rejecting all forms of creationism, I had to admit to myself that evolution was true.
 * (And then it made me an atheist. So the creationists are right about that much.) I see an article like this as a way to help educate people who might be surrounded by misinformation. To that end, stating clearly things that are obvious to me or you can help, when they are things that aren't necessarily obvious to the reader. It certainly wasn't obvious to me, 20 years ago. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The addition certainly does no harm beyond the few bytes it occupies. I have never been on the other side of that fence (thanks for the sneak-peek at what the view is like from there!) so my opinions about how a creationist would react to such or such phrasing are not (must not be) very strong.    — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ID is primarily an argument against evolutionary biology, using an old philosophical/theological argument for the existence of God, as if that were relevant and sufficient to defeat "Darwinism", without explicit mention of God, as if that were sufficient to make it non-religious and scientific, but only makes it pseudoscientific.   TomS TDotO (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with this statement, but am confused as to why it is indented as an answer to my comment. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 19:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, too. Sorry.   TomS TDotO (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The top of the page says that: By saying this, are we following the NPOV policy? Or are we asserting that opponents of ID are correct? (If it's the latter, then couldn't we at least say that Opponents of ID regard it as a form of creationism and/or Opponents of ID see it mainly as a creationist religious argument for the existence of God?
 * 1) This article is about a form of creationism, and
 * 2) Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God

It wouldn't violate "undue weight" to attribute the views of opponents to opponents - provided we make darn sure that our readers know what percent of experts or other reliable sources endorse those views. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, due weight requires that we show the clear majority expert view, and don't recast reality from a fringe perspective. Calling that mainstream view "opponents" at the start simply attempts to give "equal validity" to pseudoscience. Even proponentsists present it as a religious argument for the existence of God in all but name, and their denial of creationism has no credence – even with their followers! . . dave souza, talk 19:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:Neutral point of view says quite clearly: "Avoid stating facts as opinions." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Meh seems largely the same result here as before "Of the options available in this thread, the status quo was strongly favoured. Discussion has now gone stale here and is continued in new threads down the page where further options have been presented. Samsara 20:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)" For me, it doesn't seem worth saying yet again the things I feel wrong with these have been said before over & over... How about we just all agree we dislike the lead and that until something actually changes about the topic externally or we get some newer cites to work from we just put a longish hold on any rechewing this one over & over ?   Markbassett (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, yours was the first comment in over two months, so I think we're taking the tact you recommend already. For the record, I can clearly see why, to a religious editor or to one who is completely agnostic on this issue, the current opening sentence appears POV-ish. the DI and others have worked very hard to get ID recognized as science. But at the end of the day, the current opening sentence is as accurate and brief a definition as we could possibly provide, with the possible exception of the previous opening sentence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Anti-evolution legislation
The article Anti-evolution legislation was titled Academic freedom bills until this past December. There is currently a discussion at Talk:Anti-evolution legislation about whether the article should be moved back. You are invited to participate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029184445/http://infomotions.com/etexts/archive/ia311518.us.archive.org/1/items/humanismphiloso00schiuoft/humanismphiloso00schiuoft_djvu.htm to http://infomotions.com/etexts/archive/ia311518.us.archive.org/1/items/humanismphiloso00schiuoft/humanismphiloso00schiuoft_djvu.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624124225/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/i_guess_id_real.html to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/i_guess_id_real.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716192004/http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf to http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150317175934/http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/2400-expelled-overview to http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/2400-expelled-overview
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220073757/http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1229&context=lawreview to http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1229&context=lawreview
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906051325/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121614385600/http://www.discovery.org/csc/ to https://www.discovery.org/csc/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051229165742/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2005/12/kitzmiller-intelligent-ruling-on.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2005/12/kitzmiller-intelligent-ruling-on.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140121215501/http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/129-natural-39-knowledge-39-and-natural-39-design-39 to http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/129-natural-39-knowledge-39-and-natural-39-design-39

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Opening sentence
Apparently even minor copy edits get reverted on sight at this article. My edit was far from elegant, but the sentence as it stands is even farther from elegant. It's a cumbersome sentence. I split it into 2 sentences to improve readability a bit. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That opening sentence has been so hotly debated, and with such regularity, that people here are extremely skittish about even the slightest change of wording. The current one is a minor alteration of the previous long-standing version obtained via a multi-part RfC which you can find in the archives if you care to waste your time. For this lead, DDDDDDB applies, rather than BRD :P Your addition of the abbreviation, OTOH, cannot possibly alter meaning, and is a clear commonsense improvement, so it's likely to stand on its own. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 05:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen it. I'm not out to change anything. The change I made did not alter the meaning of what was being said one iota. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it could be argued that "an example of" is a minute departure from "found to be". I took another crack at it, this time retaining the original text almost word-for-word. Again, I have no objection to what's being said. I'm just trying to make it a bit easier to parse. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I will support the RfC on that comma. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 06:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The text involved, without references, is: The changes look good to me. Johnuniq (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The change seems reasonable to me, but I am concerned about the comma and whether it should follow the close quotation mark in the second sentence of the new version, or be placed between the word origins and the close quotation mark... In line with usual practice for this and similar topics, I propose an RfC be prepared and advertised on the central messages, a minimum of 150 kB discussion at AN over the composition of a three admin panel to close the RfC, revert wars over the changes in the meantime, several blocks, and a three-month ArbCom case coming to the conclusion that it cannot mandate MOS changes and DS are already authorised., at the risk of having to recuse and miss what will no doubt be one of the archetypes of pointless ArbCom cases, can you weigh in on the weighty matter of the lede sentence change and the vitally important topic of punctuation?  Wow, I wish I could pretend there was no basis for my admittedly sarcastic comment, but I've been here too long...  EdChem (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I also realized that "evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" appears twice in the first paragraph. Hopefully my use of a pronoun in place of this word-for-word antecedent that appears only two sentences before it isn't a major issue. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * (fast track attempt :) I see no problem with your changes. — Paleo  Neonate  — 14:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The first sentence as it is now looks good to me, especially with the repetition of the "evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" taken care of. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC).


 * Great. Thank you all! Joefromrandb (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the lede
I think the second paragraph of the lead section was rather hard to follow, especially for readers who don't already know what irreducible complexity and specified complexity are. I've attempted a copyedit, without changing the content. Since I've moved things around, the notes may not be best placed. (And note 12 seems to be defined somewhere lower down; I dunno if anything needs doing about that.) Altogether, please improve or revert or comment here, anybody who cares to. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Bishonen - mmm, mis-stated IC there. That says "Both these arguments offer detailed assertions that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes."   SC is about "too complex", but IC is not.  IC is about something that cannot be broken down into a simpler form.  This is similar to the ancient positions of Georges Cuvier or Charles Pritchard e.g. see here.  Irreducible complexity can be talked about as a real phenomenon -- that there is some smallest increment -- but it's a case of proving a negative, that we do not know how does not mean there isn't a way.  Markbassett (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mark's statement here. I've made some minor changes that reflect this, I believe. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * When reading the introduction, I wonder: is "detailed" appropriate there? I could be pedantic but I have the impression that "detailed" is there in attempt to make it sound impressive.  If they went enough into the details, much of the arguments would self-defeat (topic coverage is obviously selective with dismissal of contradicting information).  If others agree that "detailed" is misleading, possible alternatives: "many assertions", "various assertions", "a number of assertions", or just "assertions".  I'm not necessarily suggesting "rehashed claims", but... —  Paleo  Neonate  — 18:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed and removed. There is already one "detailed" a few sentences after, let's not wear out the word. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 18:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  — 19:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Detailed" is accurate; quite a lot has been written in support of these, and they are rather detailed arguments when made by the most educated creationists. That being said, I'm not opposed to removal as there's no need for this article to specify that they are detailed. (Do not take this as an endorsement of those arguments; they are crap and are easily refuted by far less detailed arguments.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that you, who are not in the least in danger of being thought of as a closet creationist, felt the need to include an aside to explain that detailed ≠ good, strikes me as exactly the reason why the word should be used carefully. For most people, more detail = better. Probably for the same reason the conjunction fallacy works. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 10:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Notice that I didn't object to removing it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I did notice, don't worry. I just thought that it was worth emphasising why I'd personally go a nudge beyond "there is no need for 'detailed' here", and be generally wary of the way this word is used in similar situations.  — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is a weasel word that lends credence to the claims. I was just pointing out that it technically accurate. And, of course, noting for anyone too lazy to check my contribs or user page that I'm not defending those claims. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're fine, you are now entitled to wear the official TINC seal Face-smile.svg . —  Paleo  Neonate  — 00:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am adding a note on Charles Pritchard to the history of Irreducible complexity.  TomS TDotO (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"Creationist religious"
The consensual opening statement has been, Intelligent design (ID) is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God. Someone removed the word "religious," which was promptly restored. I believe that word is grammatically redundant, specially since "creationist" links to ''Creationism is the religious belief that. . .''

In the interest of semantics, can we remove the word "religious"? It would still appear 29 times in the article (excluding the citations) if I counted correctly. YoPienso (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to the removal or to reformulate so that it appears less redundant. A possible formulation: "Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God.  A form of creationism, it asserts that the world was created by a supernatural intelligent designer."  Let's wait for a few more comments, though.  Thanks, —  Paleo  Neonate  — 17:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The redundancy of "creationist religious" is a much better argument than the appeal to deism of the recent commit, which raises my hackles in ways that are too tedious to put into type. I really like your proposed formulation, and will support it if implemented. You'd need to alter " Presented by its proponents " into something like " ID is presented...", to avoid relying on "it" in two consecutive sentences. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 17:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * After updating the lead, another redundancy issue shows up: "Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses." —  Paleo  Neonate  — 19:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What about only keeping "Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God." and dropping the second or third sentence? It would then immediately be followed by the above.  I will revert my change for now until we have a better solution.  —  Paleo  Neonate  — 19:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Or we could simply remove the first instance of "creationist" and wikilink the second instance... — Paleo  Neonate  — 19:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Dropping the second or third sentence is a big no-no for me. Each brings something new and specific to the table. Dropping the first instance of "creationist" and wikilinking the second, however, seems quite reasonable to me. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 20:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This change was applied. The text flow seems nice to me so far...  —  Paleo  Neonate  — 20:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Meanwhile I just thought of another option. ID is also called "intelligent design creationism" (IDC) by a truckload of sources; Boudry, Forrest,... Why not go "Intelligent design creationism (IDC), or intelligent design (ID) for short, is a religious blah blah blah"? A possible objection is that ID advocates would definitely not refer to it as such, since totally not being creationism in a lab coat prop is ID's schtick. Don't know if that should matter -- ID advocates refer to ID as a lot of things that just don't fly -- but there may be a guideline about that type of stuff that I just don't know, so I'd be prudent about doing that. To be clear I'm not advocating the change right now -- I'm happy with the current version -- but mostly wondering aloud why it wasn't done before and if there's a policy-based reason for that that I'm missing.   — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 20:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe common name? It's not always the best indicator, but I get far more search results for "ID" + "Intelligent design" than for "IDC" + "Intelligent design creationism" (2,690,000 vs 1,620).  But I think that mentioning both in the lead is not the same as renaming the article, which is mostly what common name is about... —  Paleo  Neonate  — 20:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, close enough. IDC is quite a mouthful, and I won't argue that it's popular. Yes technically that policy is about titles and not leads, but on a lead as contentious as this one has been, and will keep on being, I certainly don't want to introduce anything in it that would open the way for endless ratiocinations and lawyering. The current version is solid, let's stick with that. I'll rest my case, and myself as well because it's getting fairly late in my timezone. Thanks. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 20:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * After reading the lead again, I also like its current state. Thank you for your comments and good night, —  Paleo  Neonate  · 21:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Although this change perhaps plays down the central point that ID is creationism relabelled, it reduces redundancy and I think it reads better. In the context of these changes, the first paragraph seemed overlong and rather complex, so I've split it into two sections, each of which has a different focus: first the definition, and second the proponents. Think that improves readability. . . dave souza, talk 16:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed your changes and find no problem with them. I don't think that we downplay it by not having it in the first sentence personally, since it's still in the first paragraph.  Quoting Numbers (which you just added) also helps matters.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate · 18:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes; nice job! I've just eliminated the redundant "a religious argument" from the clinching sentence for further streamlining. YoPienso (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * YoPienso - removing the "religious" and leaving "creationist" seems appropriate as a directly literal description and partisan identification, as well as a phrasing that has been done here before for whatever that is worth.  ID does hold that an external intelligence made things, which is literally "creation", and theologists and philosophers have labeled it as a branch of creationism so cites could be found.  Folks accepting any of it also seem to get called that as a partisan labeling even if not literally true, as they seem to call NCSE or Dawkins Darwinists.   In contrast, 'religious' is harder to show evidence for as it is not what is commonly considered religion -- not literally stated from scripture, using prayers, have elements of ritual or religious law or temples or gotten recognition by governments (even in England where Druid, Witch, Star Wars or Pastafarian serve) as a tax-exempt church, nor has it been claimed as a precept of churches to any significant extent.  It could be in the sense of metaphorically for a fiercely held belief be called a 'religious' belief similar to saying Darwinism is a religion, or it could be referring to motivations behind ID rather than ID itself, but both of those seem not the COMMON understanding here so it would be confusing unless more detail were added.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Mark. I think the general reader who hasn't engaged in endless pages of talk but simply consults Wikipedia to find out what ID is will find the current wording perfectly clear.
 * As you know, ID is an attempt by creationists to couch creationism in scientific terms. It is thus religious. YoPienso (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a theory not an argument!
There is a clear difference between an argument and a theory. No source calls it an argument.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Cited source: Numbers p. 373 says "Although the religious roots of the design argument go back centuries, its contemporary incarnation dates from the 1980s". . . . dave souza, talk 16:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ID does not make any useful predictions and cannot be used to model the state of biodiversity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether it is correct or can make predictions has no relevance to whether it is a theory.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is completely false. Please read Scientific theory. And do not try to argue that this is not a "scientific" theory but a more abstract theory; it explicitly and obviously pretends to be a scientific theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:MjolnirPants (and Apollo The Logician) - theories are explanatory, not necessarily predictive -- for example Natural selection is an explanatory framework, it does not predict future events. Markbassett (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Scientists would have no reason to investigate natural selection if they thought it only worked yesterday and will not apply in the future. In some pedantic sense unrelated to the real world, predictions about the future are impossible because evidence only says what happened in the past. However, I'm still going to look both ways before crossing the road. Johnuniq (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also see Prediction. In the case of evolution (and the converging sciences involved), it is common to predict where and at which depth a particular yet-undiscovered transitional fossil is likely to be found, for instance.  This is also the case for live species in adaptive radiations.  We attempt to predict which influenza strain is likely to be epidemic for the next season for vaccines to be ready on time, etc.  The more accurate scientific theories are, the more effective they are at making predictions (other factors are important too of course, like the availability of the evidence).  Gravity waves were predicted by theoretical physics before they were confirmed too (so is the case of so many discoveries in physics)...  — Paleo  Neonate  - 05:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It clearly is not a scientific theory, although it would like to pass as such, which is probably why we also must specify that it is pseudoscience. Although we could use theory colloquially, it may perhaps give undue weight to those arguments (or statements of faith)...  —  Paleo  Neonate  — 19:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * theory is not synonymous with scientific theory. There such a thing as a nonscientific theory.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well yes my above post also acknowledges that, but consider this quote: "Presented by its proponents as 'an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins'"... Wikipedia cannot present it as such, however.  Avoiding the word theory in this context (other than in direct quotes like that one) appears justified to me, to avoid any confusion.  —  Paleo  Neonate  — 20:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that its not being a scientific theory is kind of a central point about ID, also using the word 'theory' in its colloquial acception is about as smart a move as storing hydrochloric acid in a water bottle, and storing that bottle next to real water bottles. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 20:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Intelligent design is presented as a philosophical theory as well. Either way how about another word like idea? Because I hope we can all agree it is not an argument.Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The masterminds of Intelligent Design are fully aware of the differences between the colloquial "theory," and "scientific theory," and are fully aware of laypeople's confusion and conflation of the two terms, hence the deliberate decision to append "theory" to Intelligent Design in order to deliberately deceive people into assuming that Intelligent Design is somehow, someway scientific.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are historical theories, artistic theories, legal theories, etc. Intelligent Design is not a theory. ID does not, for example, define or describe the central terms that it uses. It does not distinguish between what happens and what does not happen (is it possible under ID that humans would have eyes like octopuses or flies or potatoes - of course, those could be designed). In brief, ID does not have any prospect or interest in answering the 6Ws, 5 Whys, Means, motive, and opportunity. TomS TDotO (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read thisApollo The Logician (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Which says " the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment" Theroadislong (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You missed the part before it "In modern science".Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The proponents of ID "theory" claim that it would be part of modern science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is both irrelevant to whether or not it is a theory and incorrect. See William Paley's watchmaker analogy for example. That is not claimed to be scientific evidence.Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * William Paley's watchmaker analogy is not a theory either, it's an argument. Theroadislong (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I know never claimed it was a theory. I claimed it was a philosophical argument which has been used to justify a belief in intelligent design. Therefore ID is not necessarily presented as a scientific theory.Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ID refers to a relatively recent movement (1980s+), to which Paley was a precursor. The third paragraph of the lead deals precisely with the distinction between ID specifically and theological precursors. This waste of time seems to stem from your wanting to substitute any vague notion of deism or 'things having been designed by an intelligence' for any instance of "intelligent design". That doesn't work.  — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are confused. This is not the Intelligent design movement article..Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is about the concept, the phrase, and the argumentations which are tied to this specific movement. Paley was not an ID advocate. ID didn't exist as such. That ID advocates mention Paley does not change that ID's bread and butter is passing off as a scientific theory.  — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Paley was not an ID advocate? You must just have escaped from a mental asylum or something.Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I confess I missed his latest treaty on irreducible complexity. It may be because my mental asylum does not afford me good access to up-to-date scholarship. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

, I strongly suggest you refrain from making personal attacks. Furthermore, I strongly suggest you find even one reliable source which claims that ID is a non-scientific theory. Otherwise, we will summarize what the reliable sources say: that ID is a line of argument, not a theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  14:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ID is defined as "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." There are two important features of this. (1) It does not offer an explanation, it only claims that there is an explanation. (2) It is framed as a negative, that there is something amiss with the scientific explanation. In order to be taken as a theory, it has to offer an explanation. As things stand, it is not even a expository essay, but merely a complaint about evolutionary biology. There is no "certain feature" for which it even attempts to say "what happens so that things turn out as they do", and no one is interested in exploring that question. Nor, when or where, or who are the intelligent causes. The literature is exclusively devoted to what they think is wrong with evolutionary biology, never do they show any interest in describing how' a design can result in a product. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ID is an argument in the specific philosophical or theological sense, so I've linked that term in the opening paragraph. That makes it clear it's not one of the other usages in Argument (disambiguation), including Argument Clinic. . . dave souza, talk 16:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No it isn´t! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * TomS TDotO - you've misquoted discovery.org, the line is perhaps a proponent descriptive rather than definition but reads
 * "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
 * Other definitions of ID include as
 * " the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence"
 * " the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity."
 * " the idea that the world is so complicated that it cannot have developed by chance, and must have been made by God or some other intelligent being"
 * We are seeing that Theory is also multiply defined and a POV evaluation here, demonstrated by Apollo The Logician and the others above. Even when it's not just word games, opinions vary on whether ID suits whichever definition of Theory, depending on which definition of ID and of Theory one starts with.    Markbassett (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how I've misquoted anyone. Please help me so that I do not make the same mistake again.
 * Anyway, most of the "definitions" of ID are presented as what ID is not. It is generally recognized as a flaw in a definition to be stated as a negative. If X is not properly defined, then one cannot claim anything about X - not that it is a theory nor that it is anything else.
 * Moreover, all of the statements about ID fail as proper descriptions or definitions because they depend on undefined terms. Ignotum per ignotius. Once again, if X is not properly defined, etc.
 * Moreover, even if we were to grant that ID is properly defined, there are some criteria for a theory. For example, that a theory offers an explanation, "why this, rather than something else". ISTM that "created or designed by some intelligence" would equally apply to any conceivable situation. "The Earth in a nearly elliptical orbit of the Sun", yes God could be responsible. But equally so, "The Earth is in orbit about the Moon" or "The Earth's orbit is s discontinuous curve" or whatever, are possibilities for action by "some intelligent entities".
 * But I think that I am straying beyond the proper bounds of discussion in Wikipedia, even in "Talk". I think that I should be citing some authority, rather than making an argument. Perhaps the authorities cited in the main body of this article make these points. TomS TDotO (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * TomS TDotO (here as this is direct response to you asking me) (1) The misquote is that it's a partial of the line from discovery.org (you might not have had the full item or context).  Particularly the missing phrase "holds that" casts this more as a descriptive discussion or results than as a definition.  Discussion of the line as a definition may simply be moot if it was not a definition.  (2)  The three definitions I show ~are~ given as definitions from authoritative RS.  For WP:V sense I don't think TALK should dispute that they are definitions.  Your statements about 'most of the "definitions"' defining by negatives are not so for any of those, so perhaps you are referring to informal polemic or strawmen false definitions from opponents?  (3) It's not solely about it is commonly defined with the word "theory", it's more widely that definitions around "ID" and "theory" _vary_.  Even when one ignores the partisan framing instances.  Even with just a few here none of them are really close to each other.  Is it "certain features" or life or the universe or just the world ?   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * ID is an argument for the theory is that an intelligent being created the universe. To use your example, the theory of a creator explains the earth's orbit.  TFD (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Explains in what sense? Would knowing that a creator made everything explain the path or speed of Earth's orbit? Does ID explain which of Venus and Mars has the larger orbital period? Johnuniq (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are confusing the efficient and the final cause. Physics would describe the speed of Earth's orbit, while religion would explain why the rules exist:  because they are the best of possible rules in the best of all possible worlds.  TFD (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are agreeing that ID explains nothing about orbits—that is another example of why ID is not a theory because it explains nothing about anything. ID is a claim that certain things cannot be explained by theories and that therefore a creator must be responsible. ID does not identify any properties of such a creator other than the obvious point that the creator would operate outside all theories devised by humans. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You mean explains nothing about orbits that is measurable. You assume in your statement a postivist perspective. medieval theories of physics do not explain anything about orbits as far as you are concerned yet are considered theories anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 14:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * actually has a very good point. The fact that we have no way to to extrapolate predictions from the postulate "A creator made and controls the universe" isn't a logical failing preventing it from being a theory, but a practical one preventing it from being a useful theory. It is conceivable that we could discover, measure, observe and eventually dissect a god, and from that produce a model which could make useful predictions. So it's arguable that "A creator made and controls the universe" is a theory, in a very strict logic-only sense. This is the same sense in which any hypothesis or postulate of any sort could be said to be a theory. (Admittedly, the resultant model would be the theory, but theories and their axioms are routinely held to be the same thing, so I don't see any use to quibbling over that point.) It would not hold up for even the briefest moment in practice, but in theory (pun intended, thank you) it is a theory. But one cannot say that a negative statement, by itself can be a theory, because it does not actually even attempt to explain something. One cannot produce a prediction from a negative statement, one can only produce further negative statements.
 * All of that being said, we actually aren't discussing any changes to this page, so I suggest taking this discussion to user talk if it is to continue. You all are welcome to use my talk page if you don't want to clutter up your own. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right about WP:NOTFORUM, thank you for reminding us. This conversation is indeed overdue at this point for this article talk page; I think that we have reached a consensus to not use the word theory to describe ID in the article.  — Paleo  Neonate  - 18:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * May I please, just this once, note that Brexit will inevitably be the best possible Brexit, in the best of all possible worlds. It would not, however, imply the Brexit is intelligently designed. . . dave souza, talk 19:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear god, the geek factor in that reference and the ironic meta-ness of linking to Candide instead of Leibniz just gave me a massive nerdgasm. Good job. Now excuse me while I bask in the afterglow. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

To get back to the discussion point, a theory explains something. Postivists say that unless a theory is falsifiable it is meaningless, therefore not a theory at all. Whether or not that is true, ID does not explain anything. It argues from a theory that that there is design in nature to a theory that there is a designer. Historically this was called the "argument from design." Creationism otoh is a theory. What connects it to ID is that some creationists use irreducible complexity in support of their theory. TFD (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * TFD -- explanatory is what a theory does all right, but ID is also said to explain or "best explains" some things.   The falsifiability seems a bit disputed too where Evolution has also been/is said as not falsifiable, and falsifiability has been notably criticized.   But I'm not seeing how you got Creationism is a theory out of those.    I would say 'Just follow the cites', but in this case as I said earlier in this TALK, the cites seem not agree.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * What does it explain? TFD (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Not better?
Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F1AF:4E08:481B:F38B:72AF:90A5 (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Because we don't use scare quotes. SeeWP:SCAREQUOTES. Meters (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Putting pseudoscience in quotes suggests to the reader that the description is unsubstantiated, which is misleading. It would be different if it was a full sentence that was directly quoted from a reliable source, however.  — Paleo  Neonate  - 23:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228190939/http://elizabethnickson.com/darwin.htm to http://elizabethnickson.com/darwin.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140306170150/http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Science/Creationism_and_Evolution/ID_Prn.shtml to http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Science/Creationism_and_Evolution/ID_Prn.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140308082914/http://www.science.org.au/reports/intelligent-design.html to http://www.science.org.au/reports/intelligent-design.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716061337/http://www.hssonline.org/publications/Newsletter2008/NewsletterJanuary2008Creationism.html to http://www.hssonline.org/publications/Newsletter2008/NewsletterJanuary2008Creationism.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140304090148/http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/~dave/Behe_text.html to http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/~dave/Behe_text.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120801101947/http://www.apologetics.org/MolecularMachines/tabid/99/Default.aspx to http://www.apologetics.org/MolecularMachines/tabid/99/Default.aspx
 * Added tag to https://www.thurrock.gov.uk/sites/default/files/assets/documents/examplar_unit_y9_science_religion.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224195947/http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002225932_design31m.html to http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002225932_design31m.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Is there a place for the following edit in the section of the article that reads: "Concepts", under the sub-section, "Intelligent designer"?

"While the notion of intelligent design has yet to be proven and is based primarily upon deductive reasoning, it has neither been disproved. Moreover, science has yet to understand how the universe exists, noting how that, in the Standard Model of Physics, for the universe to exist after the alleged "Big Bang", "equal parts of matter and antimatter were produced and they cancel each other out" whenever these two parts naturally meet."

The above edit was initially made on 26 October 2017, but deleted after only a few minutes. Question: Is the above edit pertinent to this article, or not?Davidbena (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, Davidbena, I reverted your last two additions to the article. The first bit being mainly due to you synthesizing your own sentence from disparate sources and it being undue. The second revert being because there is no reason to be linking to Conservapedia, a decidedly unreliable website. Please try to gain consensus for any additions to this article as it's generally controversial. Capeo (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * First, there has been no synthesizing as you claim. I have simply made two relative statements connected to one another as we all know, under the definition of "Intelligent Design" widely-construed. Be-well.Davidbena (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Davidbena, your first statement bears little relation to the source, which itself looks pretty good. Its main message seems to be that science looks for explanations based in empirical evidence, while ID is a marketing exercise for religious apologetics, and so inherently unable to provide that, or to accept science. That's my first reading, suggesting it can be a useful source. The second is a Forbes opinion piece by Brid-Aine Parnell, a freelance science and technology journalist with a career mostly at El Reg, not very convincing as a qualification in relation to ID claims. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the two pages don't mention ID so are clearly useless as a source for this topic. Are you kidding? . . dave souza, talk 18:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Davidbena, the origin and reasoning behind ID is already outlined in the article. The bit about it not being being disproved is your own creation. It's not a scientific theory and puts forth no testable claims to be proven in the first place. The second sentence has no place in this article, ID has nothing to do with the Big Bang, matter and anti-matter or the Standard Model. Capeo (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, there's absolutely no reason to hold an RFC on this. And RFC is for when consensus is hard to discern or contentious and is a final resort, not the first. Capeo (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In fairness, ID includes Gonzalez repeating the Fine-tuned Universe argument that the universe works, therefore God musta dunnit, but Parnell makes no mention of that, which we've already covered in the article. . . dave souza, talk 18:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * True, but Davidbena didn't seem to be going for FTU but instead just a general "nobody knows so anything can be true" type argument. I see your point though. Capeo (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See what you mean, implication is Davidbena's God is a god of the gaps, and any gap will do. . . dave souza, talk 19:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree (For inclusion).


 * Oppose Contrary to WP:PAGs (see WP:PROFRINGE, WP:Editorializing and suffering of OP's eternal conflict with WP:NOR) and to logic (begging the question about ID being "not disproven", the red herring about the Big Bang). Afaik, ID has not been even formulated yet as a hypothesis, if I were to name this article I would name it The culture wars controversy regarding the movement for formulating a forthcoming intelligent design hypothesis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Obviously. I still think and RFC is a bit silly and jumping the gun but, it's here so... Capeo (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Go thou, and summarise Frank S. Ravitch, Marketing Intelligent Design: Law and the Creationist Agenda properly. . . dave souza, talk 19:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The wording suggests that it may be a valid hypothesis with future discovery implications. Reality is that it is a reactionary movement including pseudoscientific arguments to dismiss much of science, that those pseudoscientific claims are considered untenable.  The part about antimatter is also based on misunderstandings.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - An opportunity to be blunt I feel. Total bollocks. -Roxy the dog. bark 19:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's "yet to be proven"?  So, it's on equal footing with the Theory of Gravity, I suppose.  That's a neat trick for something unverifiable and unfalsifiable.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  20:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This comment was typed into a box connected via a long string to other similar boxes around a blue marble. That is only possible because science is right a lot more often than wrong. Wikipedia uses reliable sources based on that science, without editorial spin concerning what science does not currently know. Johnuniq (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The proposed wording is fundamentally against the whole article, which describes "the notion of intelligent design" as a religious argument and pseudoscience. So "yet to be proven" or "not yet disproven" is meaningless since there is no scientific question. The rest is about gaps in the current knowledge, and, therefore, an instance of god-of-the-gaps argument. Retimuko (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Attic Salt (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose ID cannot be proved and the role of modern science is not to understand how the universe exists. But then ID would not exist if its proponents understood the scientific method. TFD (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion for all the reasons already articulated. This RFC should be closed as it has a snoball’s chance in hell of going anywhere.—Adam in MO Talk 06:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposed text gets the whole problem round the wrong way, it is not 'dis-proof' that is required, rather a modicum of 'proof' ( or indeed a provable/disprovable hypothesis), in order for ID to be treated as a scientific theory. AFAIK it has never been 'proven' that standing on your head does not cure umpteen diseases, however in the absence of any reliable proof that it does ........ I wish the proponents of ID would join the trillions of believers throughout history, and millions alive today, who can see that there is no contradiction whatsoever between science - which relates the mechanics of the universe - and religion/metaphysics which concerns itself with inherently metaphysical questions, to which one would never expect to find physical answers or proofs. Trying to claim a scientific basis for a 'god' is as silly as expecting to find the telephone number of a plumber in the Bible. Ah well! Pincrete (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The proposed addition has no place in an article about ID (except possibly as a textbook illustration that ID is not good science since it relies entirely on attacking competing hypotheses). If you want to see why it doesn't belong here, try replacing "the notion of intelligent design" with "the existence of fairies at the bottom of my garden". It's essentially a piece of whataboutery. Brunton (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Alternatives to Intelligent Design
It looks like the name "Intelligent Design" as an area of study has been contaminated by religion from the get-go. While ID proponents insist that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins," it turns out they had a hidden agenda all along to convert people to religion, and in the words of their own religion, make people more evil than themselves. (Matthew 23:15) The way our mainstream culture reacts to it is by calling the whole thing pseudo science. What is, in some respects, an overreaction is understandable.

But what about people who really do want to study these things without the religion?

My question is, does there exist an identity for a group of serious and respected truth seekers (scientists, philosophers, etc) who ARE trying to do what "Intelligent Design" was supposed to do, as promised by its proponents who failed to do so? Is there a truly secular group that pokes beyond the status quo of modern mainstream science's current assumptions about metaphysical naturalism (without violating naturalism per se, only challenging our assumptions about nature) in order to investigate deeper mysteries about the universe, and perhaps our origins, without the religious baggage?

"Intelligent Design" might have been a neat identity. It's too bad that it was contaminated by religion. But maybe there's something better because the word "intelligent" seems to also introduce a certain assumption. (Intelligence could be on the table as fair game, but not required.) Something more progressive and open minded than the people who are yelling at each other on both sides of this debate.

If such a thing exists, it might be helpful to the article to explore or at least mention this contrast.

DavidPesta (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure: scientists do this work without appeal to religion (biologists, physicists, astrophysicists, geologists, etc). Please see Talk:Evolution/FAQ, scientific method, scientific theory, evolution as fact and theory, evidence of common descent.  But also note that this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article and is not a general discussion forum to discuss the topic (WP:NOTFORUM).  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I might not have been clear about what I was asking. Are you saying that these mainstream scientists already challenge the status quo and explore the ideas of ID without its religious agenda? (Without necessarily assuming intelligence, but not excluding it either.) I understand now this is not a forum. My apologies! DavidPesta (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There is an article about the argument from design. Note though that it is part of philosophy not modern science, since it has no predictive ability and is not falsifiable.  It's not as if finding fossils or looking at cells under the microscope will strengthen or refute the argument.  TFD (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Especially since the proponents of Intelligent Design deliberately made no effort to define what "intelligent design" in order to use the "Moving the goalposts" fallacy to defend their fallacy-filled non-argument.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * DavidPesta - I think the topics here still are the best available for that. Though there also seems to be many other topics where Evolutionary Biologists have been poking holes in Evolution status quo from the inside in other ways.   Markbassett (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Is the Simulation hypothesis a non-religious version of Intelligent Design? Why or why not?


 * Has the Simulation Hypothesis been disproven? Why or why not?


 * Neil deGrasse Tyson, for example, says that we are likely living in a simulation created by beings smarter than us. He also denounces Intelligent Design. A contradiction? A double-standard? Not necessarily because "Intelligent Design" has cultural baggage attached to it, which "Simulation Hypothesis" does not. Now this is where things get interesting for your article.


 * If the word "Intelligent Design" has been irreversibly contaminated in our culture by its association with religion (you make a good case for that), and if it is now unable to be studied by respected people without inadvertently attaching those people to that religion, maybe the solution is for those people to rally around a new word and study "Simulation Hypothesis" instead. It seems to be the same thing, but without the religious stigma attached.


 * Here's where an improvement to your article comes in. Your audience would be better served if the article were more informing about a particular point. Consider this:


 * Words are merely containers for meaning, that's all words are. The word "Intelligent Design" looks like it has indeed been contaminated with religious undertones and is therefore perhaps unsuitable for scientific study because of cultural problems. However, that doesn't mean that the idea cannot exist without the religion. (Neil deGrasse Tyson seems comfortable with Simulation Hypothesis.) It doesn't matter whether it's called "Intelligent Design," "Simulation Hypothesis" or something else entirely. Your audience will be served well to know that the idea does not necessarily require the religious baggage and that notable atheists like Neil deGrasse Tyson who reject Intelligent Design (because of its religion) can still embrace the same idea without its religious implications under the label "Simulation Hypothesis."


 * Perhaps an explanation of the above and references to direct them to non-religious explorations of Intelligent Design. Without this, the article seems to impress an inaccurate misleading to your audience, making them believe that the idea is inherently religious. However, Neil deGrasse Tyson is clearly comfortable with the same idea without the religious attachment.


 * It's too bad that Discovery Institute contaminated Intelligent Design with religion early on. But the good news is, the idea in its pure form can still be salvaged and studied by objective and non-religious people. Tyson opens the door in mainstream for that. Others will follow and this article should be prepared to adapt for this.


 * DavidPesta (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * DavidPesta you have clearly not understood what Paleo  Neonate  said above about this talk page not being a forum for discussing the topic or variations thereof. Please read (WP:NOTFORUM). If you would like to discuss the issues you query please go to blogs or issue debating sites. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article based on verifiable reliable sources. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I do not wish to violate policies, but I am puzzled that my suggestion was not interpreted as a way of improving the article. In the future, instead of discussing ideas for incorporation into the article, I will follow all policies and guidelines and write an actual encyclopedic worthy section that we can discuss incorporating into the article. DavidPesta (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * We have a simulated reality article about the above topic.  Not only is it not about religious creationism, but there never was a related political movement attempting to push its teaching in classrooms "as an alternative to evolution".  Even if we lived in a simulated universe, evolution would have occurred within that simulation. Moreover, there also are various observations and arguments about the simulated universe hypothesis being unlikely.  For instance: assuming that "our creators" wouldn't want us to discover our origins, science and technology, the simulation would ensure that.  If they wanted us to, the laws, physics, etc, could also have been designed in a way for us to easily understand and exploit.  Assuming that "our creators" would want us to recognize them as creators, the evidence for "it" (or "them", if we were "checker pieces" for a bored pantheon), this could be unambiguous.  The universe and life could have been made (by a loving creator) in a way such that suffering doesn't exist. This means that if we lived in a simulated universe, it would likely be a scientific experiment launched by scientists who only want to monitor the results without interference (i.e. to understand how they start and develop, starting with a scenario similar to what they learned about their own universe, and many other universes may be simulated this way).  Time inside simulated universes could appear "real-time" to its residents but out of sync and interruptible to those outside.  Those "simulations" could even originate from natural processes rather than intelligent creators.  And all of this remains pure speculation.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@ DavidPesta, you started off wrongly – the name "Intelligent Design" as an area of study was the theological teleological argument, but latterly has been contaminated by a pseudoscientific variant on creation science, as the article shows. Perhaps the simulated reality you're looking for is the Omphalos hypothesis, but in any event you need to present specific proposals for article improvement together with published reliable sources specifically related to intelligent design. The article on Tyson's imaginative thought experiment in a debate doesn't mention ID, and NOTFORUM applies. . dave souza, talk 18:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent attempts to add a "pressbox" on this talkpage
IMO that article fits rather well (I put it on Press coverage 2017), that´s one of the things these boxes are for. Anyway, I noticed that Evolution News & Science Today (copyright by Discovery Institute) has a whole little library of "Wikipedia-articles" for those interested:. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The "In Covering Intelligent Design, Wikipedia Engages in "Information Sabotage"" article might be more spot-on for the pressbox, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In fact, we do admit being biased for mainstream science and mainstream scholarship. If one misses getting this message directly from WP:PAGs, I have explained it at WP:ABIAS. We simply have to determine what passes for mainstream science and mainstream scholarship in the academia and we are biased for that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, but IMO the pressbox may very well include items outside mainstream science and mainstream scholarship/reputation for factchecking etc. Personally, I´d add Breitbart, Daily Mail and other things I wouldn´t consider as sources for an article. The subject is "mention" of WP from some sort of "media organization". The mention doesn´t have to be fair and balanced, it can be interesting anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "whole little library of "Wikipedia-articles" for those interested"
 * That gives away the fact that the Discovery Institute is an advocacy site, not a media organization—see Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. There is no reason to promote their thoughts on this page. Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Which is basically what I said in my edsum when I removed it from this page a couple of days ago. -Roxy the dog. bark 08:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Roxy the dog, you know I´ll take away your pickled herring unless you support me on this. But it was good of you to leave an editsummary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Was that fact somehow hidden? They´re more than advocacy "site", they publish stuff, make "documentaries" (I think) etc. An advocacy organisation can have/be a media organisation, it´s a somewhat fuzzy term in this day and age. There is no reason to banish this kind of publication from a WP-media box. My opinion seems to be in the minority so far, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) To repeat what I've said at Wikipedia talk:Press coverage 2017, the Question is, it it "press coverage"? These are self-published webpages with misleading names, part of the intelligent design movement promoting their cause, authored by Discovery Institute essayist David Klinghoffer. You've now given them an outlet, misrepresenting them as "the press", so expect more and more. Don't know if that's the purpose of Wikipedia:Press coverage 2017. Hard to think of a parallel, it's like describing the Institute for Creation Research newsletter as press coverage. . . dave souza, talk 11:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I replied at the other page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it is better to discuss at the press coverage talk page. TFD (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so, if ENST is thrown out of that page it´seems unnecessary to have it here. If it is kept, this talkpage can form its own consensus. Again, the article I think would fit the pressbox here is "In Covering Intelligent Design, Wikipedia Engages in "Information Sabotage"" . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think we are going to link to creationist crap like that you are deluded.Charles (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you think this page needs a link to a stale piece of inaccurate whining by Casey Luskin dated August 28, 2015? It demonstrates, unsurprisingly, that he failed to understand NPOV and, a decade after the trial, was still trying to dismiss the Kitzmiller verdict. Obviously a fringe view on one of the many Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns, EvolutionNews.org . .  dave souza, talk 17:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No talkpage needs a "this article has been mentioned by a media organization" template, they´re quite optional. What makes this one interesting is that the headline/content fits the template like a hand in a glove (while there are valid objections about if it's mediaorg enough), and as I see it, that the author doesn´t understand WP policy (that´s a lot of people, perhaps a majority of WP-readers) and has strong opinions makes it more interesting. These views exist and this is not article-space, accuracy is welcome but not a dealbreaker. Many WP-articles link to creationist and other crap where appropriate, even in article-space. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * A pressbox is for detailing mentions of the topic from mainstream (i.e. technically unbaised) press. It is not for mentioning anything from completely biased sources like ENST, many of whose "stories" can be identified as nonsense with a small amount of research. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is clearly an argument that ENST fails "mediaorg", and that´s valid. I´d like a looser interpretation, but that´s what consensus is for, and this far I´m the lone voice for inclusion. But "technically unbaised"? Say I found this on Breitbart, Fox News, Daily Mail, The Christian Post? Would you argue against inclusion then? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Breitbart and the Daily Mail have previously been ideintified as unreliable sources. The Christian Post would obviously have a COI.  Fox News?  Um, possibly. But it would have to be subject to community consensus. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But items in the pressbox or on the Press Coverage pages are not sources in the article-space meaning. They are texts that happens to mention WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter. A pressbox is a little pointless if it includes press sources that have an obvious bias on the subject. And to be honest, ENST isn't really even press, is it? Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If I haven´t said it before, the pressishness/mediaorgity of ENST is quite debatable. But I disagree with you on "a little pointless", quite strongly. Take Talk:Daily Mail. Fitting/interesting for pressbox, mostly worthless as a source in article-space. Press sources with obvious bias has a place in pressboxes and Press Coverage pages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The pressishness/mediaorgity of ENST is non-existent, it's a self-published blog produced by a pseudoscience campaigning group with a reputation for deceit and misinformation. The Daily Mail is mostly worthless, but at least it's subjected to the legal constraints that apply to recognised mass media. ENST is only useful as primary source for self-serving claims made by proponents of intelligent design creationism. Unfortunately, from the website names onwards it's misleading and deceitful, so needs to be shown in context. That can be done in articles, but not in lists where it's presented as equivalent to more reputable organs such as the Daily Mail. (the Sunday Mail isn't as bad) . . . dave souza, talk 20:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You keep saying selfpublished blog and I keep not clearly seeing that. Oh well. FWIW, someone removed it from the press coverage page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Blog – Corporate and organisational blogs ... can be for business or not-for-profit organization or government purposes. ... Companies and other organizations also use external, publicly accessible blogs for marketing, branding, or public relations purposes". . . . dave souza, talk 22:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Blog – "Some institutions and organizations see blogging as a means of 'getting around the filter' of media 'gatekeepers' and pushing their messages directly to the public." – media 'gatekeepers' is what we expect of the press, while ENST is pseudoscience marketing pushing the DI's messages directly to the public. . . . dave souza, talk 22:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Quoting from the same article, this may very well be one of them "multi-author blogs". "In the 2010s, "multi-author blogs" (MABs) have developed, with posts written by large numbers of authors and sometimes professionally edited. MABs from newspapers, other media outlets, universities, think tanks, advocacy groups, and similar institutions account for an increasing quantity of blog traffic." And it´s not like their about-page says "this is not a blog". Maybe I´m more gullible than you are. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As discussed, they're deceptively presented and titled, so a newcomer to the topic sees "Evolution News" and thinks it's some sort of scientific news outlet, but if you'd been following the topic over the years you'd realise it's really "anti-evolution arguments". Good point about them being multi-author blogs produced by a think tank / advocacy group. . . dave souza, talk 08:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to close this thread, I´m fine with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added a pressbox for ; there's a WP:DENY argument for ignoring it but it's clearly about this article. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried to revert your change, but of course got it all wrong. Sorry. However the consensus above is against you, they are not a media organisation, they are religious advocates for their beliefs. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen this argument resolved the other way on multiple pages. Regardless, the fact that there are borderline-stalkers of edits on this page seems to be something that should be mentioned somehow in the talk header. If there's a way to do that without including the link, go for it. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 17:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not new, the DI has been borderline-stalking this page for a dozen years now, they're just not very good at it. In an odd way flattering, but best to remove the box for something that's clearly not the press. . . dave souza, talk 17:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * E/c with Dave. I think that the article covers the ID'ers pov adequately, no need to over egg this pudding. I'll go with a changed consensus though if it happens, or if editors think I'm being too picky. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm only saying that some form of warning that external groups with agendas may stalk your profile and edits if you contribute here may be necessary. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the potential for stalking, but this is teh Internetz, that's what happens. It's also why you wont find me as Roxy anywhere else on the web. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Article is persuasive against ID, not informative on the topic as it should be
I'd like to call attention to the fact that the abstract of this page is incredibly slanted against Intelligent Design and seems to not only dismiss the concept out-of-hand, but also attempt to ridicule it and discredit it, simply because it involves one or more religious deities.

I would especially like to call attention to the line, "Proponents will... while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory." Or can someone please explain to me how two particles spontaneously appeared in the middle of a not-yet-Universe which had no matter? Did they happen to come from another universe? Which one? And where did that Universe come from? And have we ever proven that primordial soup arises naturally? As far as I'm aware, the only ever replication of generating life from "Primordial Soup" has been done intelligently.

The language in this article is designed to make an argument against ID, and that is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article! The purpose of Wikipedia is to be "The Free Encyclopedia," that is, a source of information, free of as-much bias as can possibly be obtained. As such, the use of this site to deliberately spread propaganda against a certain group or groups should not be tolerated.

I would like to see Wikipedia completely revise this page or remove it entirely, as it in-no-way offers information on the topic, only argumentation to say that the concepts behind the topic are false. And I do not care to see anyone's personal beliefs attacked in a so-called "Informative Article."

Long story short: Wikipedia is a place for information, not attacks on the beliefs of others. The fact that the Wikipedia staff chose to "Feature" this article shows that they do not care if their site is informative, only that it caters to a certain audience. Attempts to use articles such as these as a soap-box for forcing the opinions of one faction onto others should not be tolerated, and each subject should be analyzed based on its merits, not based on what another group opposed to the subject wants people to think about that subject.

I would like to clarify here that the reason I am calling for this is not because I favor or disfavor ID personally, nor because of any political biases of my own, but simply because I feel that the use of this article as a political soap-box is a breach of ethics on the part of the host organization. In the future, I would like it if the "Free Encyclopedia" would keep its political opinions to itself and merely present the information available to it in as unbiased a way as possible.

The way I would have structured this article would be to include information on the theory of ID, its base assumptions, its main premises, and a brief summary, without the attempts to argue for or against it. Instead, the arguments and findings that support ID should be placed in one subsection, and the arguments and findings that challenge it should be placed in another, without any attempt to indicate that either section was more preferable than the other.

Frankly, the bias in this page puts Wikipedia to shame as a source of knowledge. Since when did Encyclopedias decide to take it upon themselves to teach others what is right and what is wrong? Should we start calling Wikipedia it's own Religion, now? Because that is what it's trying to be with this page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.63.69 (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is only "slanted" against ID to the extent that mainstream science is "slanted" against ID. That's how WP:NPOV works. ID is a form of pseudoscience.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  03:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) . This displays a misunderstanding.  Wikipedia does have bias for academics and science (see WP:ABIAS, WP:PSCI, Talk:Evolution/FAQ, WP:FALSEBALANCE).  Wikipedia should indeed inform, including about what is pseudoscience.  This talk page is also not a general discussion forum; I suggest making more specific improvement suggestions.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The IP is confusing metaphysics with physics. Scientists develop theories that can be used to predict events but do not attempt to explain why the universe is the way it is.  No amount of scientific research can ever tell us that.  Nor can any explanation help us predict events, hence ID has no application to science.  ID is fraudulent because it pretends that science can be used to resolve religious issues and vice versa.  And incidentally it contains the same paradox that it is supposed to explain.  Who created the Creator?  TFD (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article is incredibly slanted against Intelligent Design and seems to not only dismiss the concept out-of-hand, but also attempt to ridicule it and discredit it. I think that non-involved Administrators should look into this article, and see whether or not it infringes upon Wikipedia's policy against WP:Tendentious. There should at least be some unbiased editing, by editors who are balanced in their approach of this important subject. IMHO.Davidbena (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:PSCI and WP:YESPOV which document policy? This is a style guide, but WP:PARITY would even allow to use suboptimal sources if they were necessary to summarize mainstream knowledge on the topic and avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE.  Fortunately we do have good reliable sources to do it.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Falsebalance" does not apply here. If you look at the leading world encyclopedias and their take on Intelligent Design, you will soon discover that the bias here is partial, as also in the minority view. Look also at the difference in the way our Wikipedia article attempts to explain ID and the way this article explains it; Difference between night and day.Davidbena (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, unlike Conservapedia, which has conservative and creationist bias, has academic and scientific bias. — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Science is based on reason and logic. ID is too. There are far more similarities between Intelligent Design and creation, than there is between Intelligent Design and random existence.Davidbena (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't say for sure but it looks like you're operating from a stance that intelligent design is not pseudoscience. Is that the case? Because if so, you have a very steep hill to climb in your efforts to build consensus, which just going by this thread is pretty heavily stacked against this idea.  City O f Silver  03:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have never said that we cannot mention the view that ID, by many, is considered a "pseudoscience," insofar that it has yet to be proven. Since it has neither been disproved, the matter remains tenable, and cannot be ruled out in the future as a fact.Davidbena (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that Intelligent Design is pseudoscience because its proponents claim it is science without a) bothering to demonstrate how it is science, b) without bothering to demonstrate how one performs science with it, and, most telling, c) without bothering to demonstrate a desire to do either a) or b). It's impossible to claim that Intelligent Design *isn't* a pseudoscience if one has to escape into the future where the possibility of someone who has the desire to demonstrate how Intelligent Design *is* a science may or may not exist.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Davidbena, read what I said above. ID is not only a false theory but it is fraudulent. While its claims cannot be disproved, as you say, they are not scientific claims. I cannot disprove for example that fairies live in my garden, but that does not provide credibility for any claims that they do and they are not scientific claims. TFD (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The pseudoscientific arguments are not working (and are contradicted by a lot of evidence discovered using real science), so we could say that its premises have been demonstrated to be wrong. What may never be unprovable is about what is inaccessible, the gaps about which everyone can have personal opinions, which is fine.  The pseudoscience is used to distort knowledge about the world because reality conflicts with particular fundamental dogmas.  We must remember that ID is a religio-political movement, not a scientific endeavor.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I disagree. Not all of ID's proponents say that it is a "science," although scientific methods of deductive logic are still used to support its general claim that the earth and universe cannot be a random existence, but have been designed and formed by an intelligent Being.Davidbena (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And with that, you clearly admit that you view ID as theology, and thus you're complaining at the wrong article – go thou to teleological argument. May FSM be with you, . dave souza, talk 08:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The scientific method uses inductive logic. And yes the proponents claim ID is science that should be taught in school science classes.  TFD (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point: deductive logic depends on the premises, and however well it may work in theology with the premise of an intelligent creator, it's not science. In contrast, the scientific method can use inductive reasoning or the hypothetico-deductive model. Don't know where Davidbena gets if from, if it's covered in a reliable mainstream science source it might be a useful addition to the article. Unfortunately, as discussed above, he seems to rely on SYN or Conservapedia. . . dave souza, talk 12:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What I, personally, view is irrelevant here. The general understanding of Intelligent Design in all the major encyclopedias is one of a given theological nature and whether or not the earth and universe, and all life forms, can be traced back to an intelligent Being. Since the matter has never been disproved, it is still of valid argument here, and should be represented in this article with due balance.Davidbena (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The theological nature of the matter is represented in the article with due weight, for example – "As a positive argument against evolution, ID proposes an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God." Of course the supernatural inherently can't be empirically tested, so isn't science, and proof is for maths and whisky, suggest you lay off these. . . dave souza, talk 13:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Dave souza, you're being quite disingenuous, for as others have noted, the article on Intelligent Design is incredibly slanted against Intelligent Design and seems to not only dismiss the concept out-of-hand, but also attempts to ridicule it and discredit it.Davidbena (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Davidbena, accusing me of being disingenuous looks like a misplaced personal attack, particularly when I'm pointing out that the article covers the point you're going on about – it doesn't dismiss the "concept", it clearly notes that the "concept" is theology and, however valid as theology, is not science. You give the impression of being sincere and ingenuous about this topic, so please work from mainstream sources rather than your original research or Conservapedia. . . . dave souza, talk 18:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ID was discredited in court a long time ago.Charles (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict] Actually, ID does not need to be discredited nor ridiculed, since it does those things to itself without help. The problem is not with the article. The problem is that your opinion is not informed by reliable sources.
 * Also, I moved your response to the proper place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hob Gadling, FYI: Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection—how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, archaeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. For example, Stephen C. Meyer, Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, notes at A Note to Teachers Stephen C. Meyer and Mark Hartwig, Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins May 1, 1993, the problem with limiting explanations to only "natural" causes: "Archaeologists routinely distinguish manufactured objects (e.g., arrowheads, potsherds) from natural ones (e.g., stones), even when the differences between them are very subtle. These manufactured objects then become important clues in reconstructing past ways of life. But if we arbitrarily assert that science explains solely by reference to natural laws, if archaeologists are prohibited from invoking an intelligent manufacturer, the whole archaeological enterprise comes to a grinding halt." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbena (talk • contribs) 18:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is preaching. We discover design when it's obvious (and the origin is human), indeed.  We look for possibly designed patterns when looking for potential extaterrestrial signals.  We however understand how things like DNA, planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies can occur through natural processes today.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I will note here that Davidbena's argument confuses and conflates ordinary design inferences with rarefied design inferences. John Wilkins and I published on this topic sixteen years ago. The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance. Gary Hurd's chapter in 2004's "Why Intelligent Design Fails" also rebuts the claim that archaeology owes anything to IDC post-hoc rationalizations of procedure. -Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What "other encyclopedias" do is not relevant. We have rules that say what we can include and what we cannot. Other encyclopedias may have other rules.
 * "Since the matter has never been disproved"? By that reasoning,  should be represented in the article. But that is not how we do things here. Present a reliable source for what you want, and we can discuss whether to include it. Until then, good bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is a good example of a balanced article: Intelligent Design (Britannica)Davidbena (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong, see this: Britannica is also biased for mainstream science. It has a broader rendering of ID claims and it has been written by the notable evolutionist Francisco J. Ayala, who also chaired the commission who wrote the famous Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Even so, it is far-more balanced than our Wikipedia article. Read it again, as it brings down pros and cons of the ID theorem.Davidbena (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What other encyclopedias do is relevant. "Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." ("Primary, secondary and tertiary sources") TFD (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is relevant: Britannica handles evolution as science and ID as religious opinion. It does not take sides religiously, but simply states the diverse arguments theologians advanced for and against ID, but it surely sides with "evolution is science" (after listing religious opinions, it describes hard science). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

For those claiming that this article is biased
Just a reminder of Wikipedia policy. The section above is typical of the continuing issues with Wikipedia articles on pseudoscience. However, as with every article in Wikipedia, you may have disagreements as to how the article is written. The way to argue against this is not merely to post to this page with vague claims of bias. If there are particular sentences and/or sections that you believe are incorrect, you need to post here with an example of how you believe they should be re-written, with appropriate reliable sources backing up your version. Then, and only then, can your proposed changes be discussed. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, thanks for interjecting here. Do you think that there is a place in the article's opening paragraph to make the following changes?

Intelligent design (ID) is a philosophical/religious argument which seeks to establish, through deductive reasoning, the theorem that the universe and all life forms were created by an intelligent being. Often presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins", it has been found to be pseudoscience. Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection," and which view, in itself, has never yet been disproven. Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses. By the same token, science, has yet to prove that the universe and all life forms therein are merely of some random existence.

END of suggestion. I personally feel that such an edit might lend some balance to our Wikipedia article.Davidbena (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The proposed text would present an WP:UNDUE view of the topic. Per WP:REDFLAG, Wikipedia is based on sources that work. Science has concluded that natural selection is real, and science is known to work. Smartphones, the internet, air travel, and a lot more are only possible because science works. Deductive reasoning is great, but it has obviously failed if it reaches a conclusion that contradicts decades of scientific observation. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But why would anyone think that if there is an all-intelligent Being who created all things that "natural selection" (death) would negate ID, or that it was not part of his scheme for the living? All living things must eventually die, some through disease, others by war, and others to supply the food chain. After all, the very nature of ID, by definition, suggests an all-intelligent being that governs our world and universe, and determines who lives and who dies.Davidbena (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) There are a few problems. Example: too many primary sources; claim that the alternative is "random existence" which is not how science puts it.  "Yet to prove" is also misleading: see evidence of common descent for instance.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are permitted to use sparingly, and with caution. The term "random existence" is used also as the antithesis of "creation." See, for example, Lanza who writes: “In the last few decades, there has been considerable discussion of a basic paradox in the construction of the universe as we know it. Why are the laws of physics exactly balanced for animal life to exist? For example, if the Big Bang had been one-part-in-a-million more powerful, it would have rushed out too fast for the galaxies and life to develop. If the strong nuclear force were decreased 2 percent, atomic nuclei wouldn’t hold together, and plain-vanilla hydrogen would be the only kind of atom in the universe. If the gravitational force were decreased by a hair, stars (including the Sun) would not ignite. These are just three of just more than two hundred physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that it strains credulity to propose that they are random – even if that is exactly what standard contemporary physics boldly suggests.” – Biocentrism, by Robert Lanza, p. 7.Davidbena (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Related would be anthropic principle and fine-tuned Universe, sure. Some possibilities vary from that multiple universes may have occurred, in the case of abiogenesis, that the universe is old and large enough for it to be possible at times and places, etc...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Problem 1. ID "is a philosophical/religious argument which seeks to establish, through deductive reasoning" misrepresents the source, which says that "the ID movement does not fair well when pitted against mainstream science, leading theologians, scientific philosophers or historians", not what ID is, and when asked for independent falsifiable proof of its claims, ID proponents are unable to respond to the question and instead give "answers based on deductive reasoning or marketing ploys." The proposed wording should therefore read "ID lacks credibility in science, theology and philosophy, and when pressed for independent scientific evidence its proponents can only provide answers based on deductive reasoning or marketing tricks". Before going any further, Davidbena needs to represent this source properly, not just cherry-pick three words out of context. . . dave souza, talk 05:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC) addendum: p. 156 of the source says "ID remains a marketing strategy", so that's a useful definition. . . dave souza, talk 06:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The recommended change is an attempt to provide false balance. Also, the last sentence is misleading.  Science is not an attempt to prove that the universe is random, but to provide principles that help us predict events, such as how fast the universe is expanding, which is something that ID cannot do.  TFD (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * When an article, such as this one, purports to address the topic of "Intelligent Design," it is not being deviant to present the general views and claims represented by the public's understanding of that topic/concept under discussion, and, therefore, under no circumstances should an attempt to define such a term be construed with false balance. On the contrary, defining the term in its most lucid form is the least that can be expected of us. As for the last sentence, i.e. "creation" vs. "random existence," the obvious conclusion to which such a vast array of evidence irresistibly leads (from the perspective of the proponents of ID) is that if the universe was not created, then it only "randomly" came into existence and all life forms having merely "evolved." While science has, indeed, shown that "mutations" do occur in human genes, according to Karl Popper, "the claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests" (Karl Popper, Natural Selection and its Scientific Status, Popper Selections, ed. David Miller, pp. 241–43. Princeton University Press, 1985). I will remind our fellow-editors that "science" is much more broad than simply "providing principles that help us predict events." Science has been defined as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Whether or not our universe has come about in one way or the other is within the parameters of scientific investigation, and, therefore, the last sentence is still appropriate. So long as science has not denied the possibility that our universe is not a "random existence," the option of it being "created" by an intelligent being remains viable.Davidbena (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this David. You've been carrying this torch unsuccessfully for a number of years now, always getting the same correct answers from new watchers on this page, and older ones. Do you honestly think that you will get the type of changes you want? It wont happen while we have the editing policies we do. I feel this is a very good thing btw. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, several years have passed without me even touching upon this subject. Only in October of this year (2017) did I attempt to add a short statement in the body of the article, which was rejected after RfC. Here, another editor raised the "red flag" that the article is strongly biased.Davidbena (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And what you're proposing is but a variation on your failed RFC, rife with the same unfounded caveats and equivocations. Now you're pulling the ole creationist canard of posting a cherry-picked, decades old Popper quote? I'm sure you're aware this article is subject to DS as Bishonen placed the notice on your talk page when you initiated the RFC. Soapbox style posts and continually arguing for the inclusion of things that have been repeatedly rejected is not a good way to proceed. Capeo (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no intent to impede progress, but I am obviously of the same opinion and mind as our co-editor who wrote that the article is slanted with an unhealthy bias. For this reason, Talk-Pages were created, i.e. for discussion about disputed topics. I think that a non-involved Administrator should decide how to proceed in this edit. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Administrators are bound by consensus when it comes to article content just like everybody else, so I'm not even sure what you're suggesting here. No admin is going to come here and force your edit into the article against consensus. As to our co-editor, it's just another drive-by pro-creationist forum post like all the creationist related articles get fairly regularly. Much like all the pseudoscience and conspiracy related articles get fairly regularly actually. Capeo (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My good friend, I am all for consensus, that coupled with maintaining Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV, especially in this article which hints on creationism.Davidbena (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTNEUTRAL. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a possible case for replacing the first sentence with Intelligent design (ID) is a philosophical/religious argument that the universe and all life forms were created by an intelligent being, the rest of the proposal is obviously biased and not worth discussing. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * First, ID is marketed as science, not as religion. Second, it has become obvious that ID is simply creation science repackaged to fool the First Amendment. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Davidbena, did you notice that the two quotes you provided contradict each other? Scientific theories cannot be conjecture only yet someone explain the structure of the world. Popper also says that scientific theories must pass tests, but there are no tests for ID.  TFD (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A theory in itself can be debunked. It can be true, or it can be false. Tests are used to verify the admissibility of that theory, until it can be proven. Therefore, until any theory has been proven to be a fact, it is in the realm of conjecture. As for whether or not ID is testable, that depends on what exactly you intend to show by it. For example, if someone claims that existing life forms did not merely "evolve" and "adapt" to their changing environment over the course of, let's say, 2 billion years, one would need to test changes in certain life forms that were taken out of their natural environment, and wait 2 billion years. This is impractical. However, there are other methods of testing the admissibility of ID, which I prefer not to discuss right now.Davidbena (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * David, please, for your own sake, stop. I've looked at you're other contributions and you seem very knowledgeable in regards to Judaism. Even there I see way too many primary sources and a general essay style that isn't encyclopedic, but it's so outside of my wheelhouse I have to leave it to others to worry about. Here though, what you just said is, frankly, scientifically uninformed. That's as polite as I can say it. I'm not going to bring you to AE (never done it and don't know the template) but if you keep up these forum-like conjectural posts someone will. Capeo (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

72.38.23.66
I invite 72.38.23.66 to discuss their concerns here. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)